Jenni 的个人资料Jenni's Jottings照片日志列表更多  |  工具 帮助 |
|
|
5月23日 The Da Vinci Screenplay book reviewedI am really close to getting off of this Da Vinci Code kick. Really.
But until I do, I'm enjoying flipping through my new copy of The Da Vinci Code Illustrated Screenplay : Behind the Scenes of the Major Motion Picture. I wrote and posted a review of it on Amazon.
Here's what I had to say about it:
So far, no one has voted my review helpful. Good thing there are only two reviews on the title! I'll be keeping an eye on it, and those other reviews of mine, too... 5月21日 The Da Vinci DisappointmentThis review is based on my speaker's notes for my movie review talk at The Expedition Church tonight. We recorded MP3s again, but no word on when/where those will be posted...
___
Da Vinci Disappointment
May 21
The Expedition
With all the hype surrounding The Da Vinci Code movie, expectations were pretty high. All last week, and for weeks in advance, it seems like you couldn't turn on a news show without hearing something about the book, the movie, and the ensuing controversy.
That's why, given all that hype, I was pretty surprised that there were no advanced screenings. The film didn't show at all until its big Cannes debut, where it was summarily and speedily panned by critics.
And now that I've seen it, I can see why. I'm about to pan it, too...
First, let me tell you a little bit about the plot. Then I'll share a few things I liked about this movie, the things I disliked, and finally, a recommendation (or lack thereof).
First, the plot: the book, like the movie, opens with a gruesome and mysterious murder in the Louvre museum. We learn quickly (that's about the only time anything happens quickly in this movie, which runs nearly two-and-a-half hours) that Jacques Saunier, curator of the Louvre, disfigured himself and left cryptic messages in the museum in the final moments before his death.
To help interpret these clues, Harvard Symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is summoned to the scene, where he is quickly warned by Agent Sophie Neveu (Audre Tatou) that he's there more as a suspect than a co-crime-solver. When Sophie reveals that the murdered man is her estranged grandfather, she and Langdon begin to tsolve he mystery of his death, but then seem to forget all about that while dilly-dallying to discuss the origin of the Bible, the history of the church, and Grail mythology, all wrapped up in a healthy dose of post-modern, post-feminine subjective reality.
And here I thought I was going to see a blockbuster.
There were a few things I thought were cool: I liked the artistic vision and special effects.
One of my favorite scenes is from the opening, where Saunier flees from his asassin down the hallways of the Louvre, being leered at by great works of art from across the ages. I liked this scene because the montage made me see the works in a different way than I had considered them before, and it works on a creepy/cool level artistically. (Save your $9 if you just want to see this scene, and search on MSN Videos for the clip entitled "Jacques Saunier Runs for It")
I also liked the way the story made use of flashbacks to compliment the occasionally-overwraught monologues. From the book, I was curious to see how the pages-upon-pages of sanctimonious lecture would play out on screen, because people standing around and just talking works fine in a novel, but can be really dull on film. Through flashbacks, we see crusaders and Templars, the Council of Nicea (somewhat more violently depicted than I've generally read how it went), and scenes in ancient Rome, playing out two ways: once with bad-evil 3rd century Christians starting a war with the nice-peaceful pagans, and again with those roles reversed, when a character acknowledging the controversey says, "we can't be sure who started the attrocities." How fair and balanced of them.
But with the flashbacks, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Almost all the main characters have important childhood traumas spelled out for us through flashbacks, and flashbacks are also used as crib notes to help explain historical details we just might miss (men in red coats and powered wigs marching down the streets of London practically shout out. "THIS IS WESTMINSTER ABBEY. FAMOUS PEOPLE ARE BURIED HERE!"). And then there's the seductively iconic flashback scene of Mary Magdalene--wearing the same outfit she's depicted in in "The Last Supper," surprise, surprise--fleeing to France with a very big belly, and giving birth to a baby girl inexplicably named Sarah. More about that world-view in a minute.
If those flashbacks had been the only thing I didn't like about the way the characters were built, it might be forgivable. But unfortunately, almost every character came off as flat and one-dimensional. Tom Hanks, with his gross greasy hair and never-rumpled suits, just strolled around the story with a furrowed brow, looking perplexed. But his confusion was nothing compared to Audrey Tatou's character--other than the part where she says "I'm a cryptographer" and hands over a note that explains Fibonnacci sequence, you never see any indication of an intellect that's any brighter than a night-light. For the majority of the movie, her dialog is limited to "what?" "huh?" and "incroyable!" in a breathy French accent.
The only character of this all-star cast is Sir Ian McKellan (known better as Gandalf, or Magneto from next weekend's XMen III), who plays Sir Leigh Teabing. He gives Sir Leigh more life as the displaced knight awash in the 21st century more life and imagination than he had in the book. Plus he has cool toys, which he uses advantageously to explain the mystery of the Holy Grail to his friends.
As I said with the book, if this story was just about the Grail, that would be one thing. But because it reinterprets the Grail to mean the bloodline of the descendants of Christ, that's crossing the line of bothersome to me. It's bothersome because the Bible--including the Old Testament, Gospels, and the rest of the New Testament--use the metaphor of the church being the bride of Christ, which wouldn't make sense if He had a wife and child when He lived here as a man.
The movie, like the book, also makes much of the theory that Jesus was just a man, and nothing more until a "close vote" as part of a political maneuver in the 4th century. But at least the movie again gives a nod to the controversy, with this exchange:
The conversation goes on, with more depiction of both sides, until it's dismissed by Teabing, saying "Semantics" as the dialog runs elswhere.
It's that worldview, that it's all just "Semantics" to be waved off, that also comes out loud and clear when Langdon tells Sophie, "The only thing that matters is what you believe." Pretty toned-down from the view in the novel, which felt pretty heavy-handed on the author's belief that all Christians had been deceived.
In summary, unless you're really into jumping into the controversy, there's no need to rush out to see this movie. Yes, there are some funky special effects, but there the kind that will play just as well on the small screen. The movie provides some interesting catalysts for conversations about the identity of Jesus, the source of Christian scripture, and the role of history in religion...
But from an entertainment aspect, it's a big disappointment.
5月1日 Da Vinci encoded everywhereI finally finished reading The Da Vinci Code this weekend, and I keep hearing about it everywhere.
For instance, right now. My roommate left a Christian radio station on in the kitchen, and now there's an episode of Focus on the Family (not a favorite, but tonight it's got my full attention) with Dobson interviewing a bunch of folks about it. The episode is entitled The Truth behind the Da Vinci Deception and the guests are Erwin Lutzer, author of The Da Vinci Deception and Lee Strobel, a favorite author of mine who's just published a new title, Exploring the Da Vinci Code (and yes, I just ordered it).
One of the guests (can't tell who) is talking about the great conversations that the topic opens for people to talk aobut what they beleive and why. I know that's been the case for me: I had a great conversation with a friend at work today about where the Bible--that book he sees me drag around in my computer bag each day--comes from, and why I put so much trust in it as both a historical document and spiritual source of inspiration.
It turns out that's one of the topics we'll be talking about at my church soon, too. In response to some of the issues raised, we'll be tacking some of the big questions that The Da Vinci Code raises. During the month of May, we'll discuss:
I dusted off my rusty ol' graphic design skills to put together this flyer to tell more about our series:
4月3日 Mining the minds of the masses with new NYT "Most Popular" featuresWhile SearchEngineWatch debates the accuracy of the Google Zeitgeist, the much-discussed New York Times redesign ushers in a couple of very cool behaviorally-driven features that are fascinating me today.
In addition to the shiny new wide-format NYT homepage (which now uses Georgia font, ooh ahh!), a tab at the top of the page links to "Most Popular." In a Letter to our Readers, NYT Editor-in-Chief Leonard Apcar explains the new features,
The Most Popular page displays four columns of behaviorally-driven information: most e-mailed, most blogged, most searched, and most popular movies. You can view these lists in aggregate, or drill down for Top 20 views by the last 24 hours, 7 days, or 30 days.
Trying to make sense of the data, it's fascinating to see the differences between the "most e-mailed" and "most blogged" lists. As of this writing, with one exception, the lists are entirely unique. I'm trying to come up with some rationale--do the e-mailed lists appeal to an older crowd? Are they less dynamic? Shorter lived? More see-I-told-you-so than let-me-tell-you-what-I-think? Got any other theories for the disparity between what's blogged & e-mail?
Also, here's something else I'm looking for theories on: Why does the Times offer a "tag cloud" view based on its search data? In addition to viewing the most-searched-for terms as a list (which is a fascinating read in and of itself) you can view a visualizaton that sizes the terms based on popularity of the search. But they're still search terms. They're not tags. Now it would be rockin' cool if Times readers could tag the stories themselves...but I think that's a bigger step than the NYT is making in this redesign.
One more big step that I'd love to see from the Times: RSS feeds off of its "most popular" features. You can get a feed of most-emailed (no specification on the date-range) but an RSS feed of the most-blogged would be much more interesting, served up Memeorandum-style. I'm also itching to try out the promised-but-not-delivered personalized (!) MyTimes (yes, I signed up to try the beta, using the same user name and password from when I first logged into the NYT.com over seven years ago).
Finally, outside of the new "Most Popular" feature set, here's just one peeve about the NYT redesign: I hate that it uses white-on-orange boxes to indicate premium-level content. My RSS-crazy brain thinks that white-on-orange boxes means RSS, but it confuses me because, at least on the NYT, they're not. Too bad. Maybe in the next redesign... 3月5日 Listening to PodCasts of Cory Doctrow's sci-fi storiesThanks to some well-placed links on BoingBoing, I've been listening to podcasts of Cory Doctrow's short stories & novellas. Yesterday, I devoured Human Readable, and then I, Robot. This morning, I've started Return to Pleasure Island, for which Cory posted the last installment just this morning.
As I've been enjoying these, I've been thinking about podcast as a literary genre. It's interesting to hear a story read aloud, and even more interesting to listen to an author read his own work (thanks, Cory). I also like that each installment is prefaced by a short message from the author, which lends it a personal touch, some relevance to what's going on in current events, and a tie to the podcast form-factor. And the bit-wise installments with links from Boing Boing reminds me of the way in which Charles Dickens novels were published in installments in a popular magazine.
Thinking about Doctrow as an author, what I like best about his stories is the way that relationsips are at the center of them: basic human bonds--father-daughter, brothers, ex-lovers--are what draws you in, how he wraps them up, what keeps you rooted in reality as he spins his far-out fantasy worlds.
2月13日 Wedding Singer wows with pre-Broadway charmThis weekend, I saw "The Wedding Singer," making its pre-Broadway run here in Seattle, at the 5th Avenue theater through Feb 19.
What a fun show!
Hopefully I'll have more time to write more a of a review later... 2月11日 Don't let the "Pink" part fool you: Steve Martin's Pink Panther is a dogLast night, I saw the new Pink Panther remake, starting Steve Martin, Kevin Kline, Jean Reno, and Beyonce Knowles.
To appropriate another Steve Martin quote, "Not wonderful, not wonderful, not wonderful, and even less wonderful."
Encouraged by Steve Martin's bang-up performance on last week's SNL, and spurred on by the complete lack of anything else compelling in theaters this weekend, we thought we'd give this one a whirl. Boy, were we disapponited.
It started funnily enough--Steve Martin's bumbling Inspector Clouseau was entertaining with his ridicoulus send-up faux-French accent...for about five minutes. After that, it got old. Really old. And with nothing else to support it, it got just painful. The plot was thin, the gags got tired, and the other performances were just lack-luster (I'm still trying to decide if Kevin Kline's phoned-in accent was supposed to be French or Brittish. Not that I'm too motivated to care one way or another.)
We knew this move reviewed badly (21% Rotten on Rotten Tomatoes, oh my) but we were hoping that the jokes would be good enough for a good laugh, or at least to make fun of. The weren't that good, and they weren't that bad, either. A complete miss, in our book.
It also completely missed living up to the Peter Sellers' version, and to the cartoon. That animated crafty pink feline put in an appearance in the opening credits, but it made me realize that, in all my childhood years of watching the cartoon, I couldn't remember a single plot line. This movie is equally forgetable.
The only interesting thing this movie had going for it were all the Pink Panter theme remixes. It started with a classic take on the Henry Mancini theme, but moved to dubs from Paul Oakenfield, among others. Alhtough really, not such an original concept, considering this has been on the market for nearly two years.
So, Steve Martin, fans, excuuuuuse yourself, and stay home to re-watch Roxanne, LA Story, or an old Steve Martin stand-up routine, and save your $9 on this one. Or maybe, just maybe, hang in there for the movie version of Picasso at the Lapin Agile. 12月10日 Faithful "Narnia" creates a magical, intense, iconic fairy landAs I emerged from the theater after seeing The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe this evening, blinking my eyes to adjust to the light & still dazzled by the georgeous CGI and iconic imagery, the first words out of my mouth were "That was certainly faithful--"
A friend cut me off half-way through that statement with a laugh. I was going to say that it was a faithful rendition, faithful to CS Lewis' vision, faithful to how I'd imagined the stories, characters, and created world in the book.
But to my friend, who, unlike me is not a Christian, he just saw it as a clear expression of faith: Aslan's act of sacrifice and the other messianic messages fit with the story of Christ's sacrifice and ensuing victory that my friend has heard from me and others who beleive.
C.S. Lewis' concerns about the Disneyficaton of Narnia aside, as an author I think he would pleased with this rendition. The computer animation makes the imaginary creatures that populate Narnia come to life, and Lewis' beloved "anamorphic animals" are absolutely beleivable. There's a magic moment early in the film when those lucky Pevensie children first enter Narnia and discover the animals can talk. It took my breath away!
But the real star of the show is Aslan. From his entrance to his tragic exit and triumphant return, he's beautifully drawn, both literally and figuratively. For graphics geeks, the hair of his mane was intricate, fine, and moved so convincingly that even I forgot to look for tell-tale signs of animation. Liam Neeson's deep dignified voice lends Aslan the right amount of tenderness, nobility, and gravitas (you know, kind of like a Jedi, but more). And the evolution of Aslan's relationship with the kids was well-developed and and well-integrated into the story line.
Among the friendlier talking animals, however, there are some pretty scary ones, too! Vicious wolves pursue the children throughout the movie, and an army of monsters more unsightly than Orks just may leave me with nightmares. The battle scene was pretty intense (although it does go to the top of my list for all-time-cool battle scences, with bonus points for a phoenix-arrow and other imaginitive weaponry). And the depiction of Jadis the White Witch was downright chilling.
This is intense stuff! Parents of small children: leave the little ones at home for this movie. It earned its PG rating for the epic battle scenes, but the intensity, wolves, and monsters may be too much for the smaller set, too. While the Narnia books make great bed-time reading for first- and second- graders, I'd recommend this movie for ages 8 and up only.
But don't think this is just for kids. It's an excellent story that's well-told, both in the book and in this movie (and way better than the BBC's attempt in the 80's). The characters are compelling. The fairy world in which it takes place is completely immersive. And the cinematography is strong, with lots of artistically powerful, iconic shots that will stay with me for time to come. Even the trailer gives you a good taste of that.
Overall, I recommend this movie. I enjoyed it thorougly, and if you like seeing fantasy books brought to life, you'll probably enjoy it too.
However, if you're into efficiency, skip the movie & stick with the book. It's a tush-numbing two-and-a-half hours long, which, if you're a fast reader, is just about how long it will take you to read (my book copy, with nice big mid-grade reader font, spacing, and illustrations, comes in around 180 pages). Those two-and-a-half hours will be well invested either way. If you go for the movie, it's worth sticking around through the final credits for one final but important post-script scene.
I do have just one final complaint: I caught one-and-only-one edit to make this movie politically correct. While all the allegorical aspects of the story stay fully in-tact, there is one memorable line that did get edited:
When Father Christmas brings gifts to the children as Narnia begins its long-awaited thaw, he gives the boys weapons, telling them they're tools to be used for battle. The girls receive weapons too, and as Lucy is presented a small dagger he tells her he hopes she'll never have to use it because, "battles are ugly." In the book, that line continues, "when women fight."
It's interesting to see that, in Disney's opinion, the symbolic retelling of man's need for Christ had to be handled (oh and that Adam and Eve thing too), but the role of women in combat is just too controversial to take on. Maybe in the next Narnia movie...
11月20日 Harry Potter 4 movie is faitful, funThis weekend, I saw "Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire." Like the first three movies, it's fairly faithful to the book, and a lot of fun to see it come to life.
It's been a long time since I'd read the fourth Harry Potter book, and with good reaosn. Of the 6 HP books published so far, HP4 is my least favorite. It's long and meandering, poorly edited (I imagine an intimated editor cowering behind that hulking manuscript, going "gee, I don't know, her first three books were a sensation, I'm sure every word here is gold, too?" ugh!), and it has a lot of extraneous, random storylines and sub-plots. All of which were mercifully cut from the movie.
Unlike the book, the movie doesn't spend too long in the prologue: we get just a few wonderfully imaginative scenes from the Quidditch World Cup, and enough action to establish that the Dark Mark has been seen again. Back at Hogwarts, the school year starts with little needless exposition as Professor Mad Eye Moody shows up and the Tri-Wizard Tournament is announced.
I LOVED the way tournament was depicted and played out. Many of the scenes looked exactly like I imagined them, and several of them looked even better. Especially the Yule ball, where it was fun to see the HP characters--and actors--that we've watched mature get all dolled up for the Prom and dance together.
That's the big contribution that brit-comedy Mike Newell brings to the scene: a sense of HP as romantic comedy, a laser-focus on the ridiculousness of some of the relationships (Hermione interested in dunder-headed Quidditch champ Victor Krum? Ron estranges himself from Harry?) and a posh, polished poise that is so essential Brittish, yet subtly absent from Chris Columbus' squeeky-clean first two installations and Alfonso Cuaron's creey third-year.
But if I have one complaint, I have to say, what is with the HP boys' hairstyles? While the girls' hair basically look like what I remember from my highschool days, the boys are wearing it long, shaggy, like a relic from an emo show, only more grown out. Is this the coming style, or something only seen in the wizarding world? I must watch more high shcool movies--or the next Harry Potter movie, which, according to IMDB, has already signed the core cast--to find out.
Latest "Pride & Prejudice" movie is a dirty, but not disappointing, remakeThis has been lingering in drafts all week--I realized it was long overdue as i read CNET’S think piece on the social ramifications of Web 2.0 (Grassroots 'taste makers' define opinions, " an expanding universe of opinionated blogs, fervent fan networks and other communities, where the power to confer popularity--or at least the fragile aura of "buzz"--can appear virtually overnight. " overnight...or over the course of a week... :) )
If you've never seen or read Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, this latest Pride and Prejudice re-make starring Keira Knightley is an okay introduction.
If you're a huge Jane Asten fan, the kind who re-reads Pride & Prejudice at least once a year, watches the BBC Pride & Prejudice miniseries rendition when sick, and blogs prolifically about last year's Bollywood-style P&P remake Bride & Prejudice, then this movie is still okay for you. It's not nearly as disappointing as you'd feared it would be.
Overall, none of my concerns about this movie were borne out. The pace was rushed, but not too rushed, o jam-pack the story into 2 short hours, and unfortunately, certain storylines & characters were condensed to make them fit (Wickham—gasp!—was but a sidenote! ). Keira knightly brilliantly played Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennett. The plot and spirit stayed more-or less true to the book. I guess cliff notes are sufficient sometimes.
And this movie did indeed add something new to the Jane Austen movie cannon: verisimilitude to true 1700’ss life. Unlike other period remakes, which always show immaculate parlors, tidy living, and impeccably coiffed Young Ladies, this world was dirty and messy. Dogs roamed free through the Bennett home, food was grabbed and gobbled at the table, gentlemen weren’t clean-shaven, and the ladies obviously did not have the advantage of shampoo, hairspray, or styling products. The set felt more like noisy, dirty Colonial Williamsburg come to life, and not the hushed, immaculate parlors of BBC fantasy.
But the best thing about this remake was the dance scenes. “I do lore a ball” is something Austen characters are wont to matter, and that passion comes off well on-screen here. Steady-am images put you in the action, and the constant movement makes it fun to follow the intrigue. There is, howeve3r, too much of a good thing, and by the end of the second ball scene, I really wanted the cinematographer to go find a tripod!
Overall, I enjoyed this movie. While it's not the triumph of the BBC remake, it's also not the disaster I feared it would be. The sweetness that appealed to me when I first read it, of characters who long for love but don't hook up til they get married, as well as the sarcasm & humor that only struck me later, all comes across on this movie screen. And probably will on DVD, too (no rush to the theater for this one).
10月30日 "The Legend of Zorro" sequel just as fun (and about as deep) as the originalYesterday some friends & I went to a matinee showing of "The Legend of Zorro."
As far as bubble-gum movies go, this one was about as good as it gets.
It was everything I expected it to be. Flashy. Loud. Lots of a'splosions & some swell sword-fighting scenes. Beautiful actors (Antonio Banderas reprises the title role, with Catherine Zeta-Jones back as Zorro's love interest, Elena) playing their parts against beautiful scenery as the story unfolds in 1850's California.
The story opens as the nascent state of California votes to approve its newly-penned Constitution (shades of current events, anyone?). Zorro proudly marks his ballot with a flourishing Z! But then, just as the election wraps up peacefully, enter the Bad Guys to steal the ballot box in an attempt to sway the vote that is never really explained later in the plot. But whatever, it's an excuse for Zorro to do his thing as he swashbuckles, swordfights, and soars through the air to defeat the Bad Guys and disrupt their evil schemes.
But while Zorro saves the day for California, he can't seem to save his marriage. Ten years after the first Zorro movie ended, all is not happily-ever-after. There's tension (big surprise) at the hacienda, where Elena has had enough of her husband putting his life at risk for silly causes like statehood. The rest of the movie revolves around Zorro trying to win his wife back, and around trying to defeat the Bad Guys, who have something to do with (brace yourself) racism, terrorism, religious fundamentalism, one world government, the Confederacy, and bad French wine.
Like the rest of the elements in the Zorro cannon (the old black-and-white TV show; the comic books, which I haven't read; and the Isabel Allende novel, which I have), the Zorro movies continue the adventures of the character, and maintain some of the elements that set it apart, including California legend and Latin-American flair. But it's the character--and the swordfighting!--that keeps me wanting more.
If you really want to enjoy this movie, check your brain at the theater door. If it's a smarter movie you want, you're probably better off with Capote, Good Night & Good Luck, and North Country Or maybe even Doom.
10月10日 Confessions of a Serenity addictWell I didn't make it to any of the great concerts that came to Seattle this weekend, but I did make it to the theater to take in Serenity again.
I'm happy to report that it totally holds up on second viewing. Shiney. :)
& I'm *almost* done watching the tv series. The only reason it's almost is because one of my roommates wants to watch it from the beginning, and the only times I've been up for watching that last unseen episode, she's been in the tv room, too. It would be far too bunger to expose her to the last one before she gets a chance to see the first.
Meanwhile, I was pleased to see that "Serenity" is one of the top tags on Technorati today.
Browsing through those posts pointed me to Serenity on Vividas, a marketing site that allows you to watch the first 9 minutes of the movie. They sure are action-packed!
Finally, while the obsession is still fresh, here is a bit more otaku: Quotes. Trivia. Continuity errors.
10月3日 Serenity getting great reviewsI found Serenity to be an even better movie than I expected. It had everything I was looking for in more-than-full measure: quirky characters, clever dialog, larger than life cowboy/pirate/space-age adventure, and a compelling-enough story arc to pull us through.
But if anything, it was almost too quirky. As much as goofy ol' Buffy-lovin' me got a kick out of it, I left the theater wondering if the rest of American movie-going audiences would get it. It is, after all, a space western. And while that's interesting in concept, I've never really seen it work. And as the FOX tv network that cancelled "Firefly," the TV show on which "Serenity" is based, made clear, it still hasn't.
But the critcs disagree. My RSS aggregator this morning is full of positive reviews of Serenity. Most surprising is Wired magazine's Serenity review. Not usually a source for movie reviews, today they had this to say about Serenity:
Movie review site Rotten Tomatoes is full of other reviews like that, giving it an 86% freshness rating. One review sampled on Rotten Tomatoes nailed it
From the packed-out theater that I was in on Friday night, that couldn't have rung more true. You could tell there were many of the Buffy faithful there by the laughs heard from some of the Buffy/Angel in-jokes (flesh-eating monsters with no souls! AND a Buffy-bot!). Plus, about 40-50 Joss Wheedon loyalists lingered to the end of the credits to see if there would be his trademark "Grr. Arrgh!" sound effects at the end. (There weren't. But when a fan supplied them when it was clear they weren't coming, the rest of the lingering crowd applauded).
Luckily for me, the Serenity didn't have to end when I left the theater. I missed the original tv series when it aired two years ago, but a friend loaned me the complete season on DVD. I'm about half-way through now, and thorougly enjoying it... 9月13日 First new TV show of the new TV season: BonesI think I've finally found a crime show that I can get into.
I'm really not one for all that blood-n-guts, cloak-n-dagger legal mystery stuff. I've never made it through an episode of Law and Order (*yawn*) and I've been known to leave the room when icky scense of CSI come on screen as my roommates are watching it.
But perusing the line-up of new TV season premiers, I found one that just happened to pique my interest.
"Bones" premiered tonight (Tuesdays on FOX, 8 P.M.). Because I am a scaredy-cat, I asked one of my crime-show-loving roommates to watch it with me. When another roommate came in half-way through and I told her I'd finally found a crime show that I was interested in watching, she took one look at the screen and, sizing me up, announced, "You're not interested in the show. You're interested in that actor."
Okay, I confess, the main draw for me was former "Angel" David Boreanaz. But I'm interested in elements of the story, too! Really!
For starters, it's loosely based on the character Temperance Brennan, who is a crime-solving forensic anthropologist created by real-life forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs. Watching the show made my head spin as I tryed to keep up with real vs TV/novel-character elements (TV-Tempe writes novels, just like the real-life Kathy; the real-life Kathy practices in Montreal, and in one scene TV-Tempe taunts someone to find another forensic anthropologist who's as good as her, and saying the next best thing is in Montreal).
I was also intriuged by the promise of pseudo-science graphics and visualizations. There's a nifty piece of make-beleive technology that lets the crime-solvers recreate the crime scene with holographs, instantly arriving at the identity of the victim by reconstructing facial features over a painstakingly reassembled skull. That was kind of nifty, in a geeky kinda way.
Finally, I was drawn in by a review that hinted at it being a potential heir to the X-Files throne. That's apparently an idea that the writers would like to encourage, since, in the opening scene, before we even get to the credits, Boreanaz's boy-detective cements (and explains) their new partnership by saying, "What? Want me to spit in my hand? You're Scully, I'm Mulder." To perpetuate the joke (and further character development), the Scully-esque character pretends not to understand.
So, after watching the episode, what did I think about it? Overall, I'll probably watch it again.
The characters were well-drawn (for a pilot, anyway). The plot moved at a decent pace. The dialog was somewhat-snappy, and so was the sound-track (I found myself playing "name that song" more than once. My best go was "Collide" by Howie Day). They mystery provided just enough clues for me to get the gratification of solving it before the main characters did. And I'm happy with where the overall story-arc seems to be going.
But what did my more-crime-show-savvy roommate think? She said she might watch it again. Compared to other crime-shows, it sounds like it's lacking in authenticity, and heavy on cliche. Compared with all the CSI spin-offs, clones, and drones, there's something I think that she was looking for that just didn't hit her with this one.
Much as I enjoyed it, I'm still flipping through the TV guide, looking for new shows to follow this season. There's got to be something better on prime time this season than reruns of "Friends" & "Good Eats." Got any suggestions? Leave a comment below...
PS If you missed "Bones" this evening, be sure to check out the Official Fox network Bones website. There's a fun streamed interview of David Boreanaz explaining his new character embedded in the Flash entry page. 8月1日 2 Bothell restaurants reviewed in Seattle WeeklyFor those who say there's nothing in Bothell, here's proof that there is. From this week's Seattle Weekly, a review of two Bothell-based Italian restaurants (one of which I reviewed previously in this post)
All that, and we have a Cafe Ladro now, too! So there! :)
7月5日 Review: Batman BeginsChristian Bale is dashing as the Dark Knight. With a chisled jaw and a husky whisper to conceal his secret identity, he was sufficiently sulky and brooding to be a beleivable young Bruce Wayne. But that was about all that was beleivable about Batman Begins. The opening begins with some embellishments on the already-familiar back story of murder and mayhem in Gotham as we re-live with Bruce the murder of his father and mother. But then we come to find out that Bruce is languishing, inexplicably, in some kind of asian gulag. He's rescued by Liam Neeson with mysterious facial hair, who then sends him on a quest. The quest leads young Bruce to a far-flung monastary, where former Jedi master Liam Neeson trains him in the art of fighting and justice. He also gets to train with ninjas. (Ninjas! That ought to make my pals at The 4 Ninja Food Groups happy, but when the ninja's stealthy entrance at a serious moment in the movie made me laugh out loud, I once again had that why-am-I-the-only-person-in-the-theater-laughing sinking feeling.) Then some neat special effects happened, and that was about the end of plot or character development. Young Bruce goes back to Gotham City, where there's some fishy office politics happening at Wayne Enterprises, and a few contrived moments happen between Bruce and a childhood friend played by the impossibly cute and newly-engaged Katie Holmes, who in this movie gets to be one of the two Good People in Gotham that do a lot of the moralizing throughout the film (the other Good Person is Gary Oldham, as a creepy yet trustworthy, uncorruptible cop). Then more things explode. There are some cool fx with exploding trains, buildings, some outrageous weaponry, and few street chases with an early-model Batmobile, but little more to do with filling in the Batman back-story happens until the last five minutes, when Bruce Wayne finally finds his soul, decides to have a moral compass, and we get the set-up for joker and a few other well-known details from the Michael Keaton Batman movie (which was, BTW, one of my all-time favorites, and was responsible for the high expectations I had going into this one). Meanwhile, for a really good example of a filling in a back-story, I recommend Isabel Allende's Zorro novel. I just finished reading it, and during the four days it took me to plow through the 400 pages, I couldn't put it down, and ever since, I haven't been able to stop thinking of it--a sure sign of a good story...
6月20日 Digging the new Cory Doctrow novel so far...I've just burned through my get-up-early-and-get-work-done time this morning by reading the first couple thousand words or so of Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town (reading on-line via the free download). So far, it's exsquisite. The power-punch comes from Doctrow's coupling the mundane with the esoteric. After wading through a bunch of Creative Commons text stuff that preceeds the on-line edition, the story starts with details about a lovingly-done home reconstruction project. But as the house remodel unfolds, you know you're in for something unusual by stray details: the old house was paid for "in full by means of an e-gold transfer," the main character collects unusual objects, and other elements clue you in that this is an eccentric character working on a house remodeling project. But then, just when my brain starts to shut down from the "blah-blah-blah house remodel task #82" (how many times have I been bored by this conversation!), we're hit with this:
By far the most compelling concept so far, the main character's unusual parentage is detailed further:
That's a well-crafted paragraph. And the mystery's intriguing enough to keep me reading on when I have more time... 6月15日 Speedy Review of "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants"Last night I got together with a couple of girl friends and we went to go see "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants." It was cute, fun, and enjoyable, though by no means a Great Movie. I have to confess that the book that this movie is based on has been on my reading list for a couple of years, and a few weeks ago when a much-read paperback version was circulating at church I almost got my hands on it, but I'm still waiting in line. Luckily, there were no lines to wait in at the theater--we were one of about a half-dozen groups of girls gathered to see this movie about four young women struggling with different life-situations in their teenage years. From that synopsis, you can probably get the basic jist of how things went. Four stories, interwoven, cleverly tied together by a narrative device which allows one mysterious pair of jeans to miraculously fit all four young women as they grow through one memorable summer. In this movie, each of the four stories was unique yet cliche, and happily only two of them revolved around romance. The more compelling stories revolved around one girl's struggle to get to know her estranged father (taking on racism and a couple of other tough issues along the way), and another girl who befriends a younger girl in the neighborhood who's been diagnosed with Lukemia. And the tears ensue. As you might guess, nothing in this movie is unpredictable or surprising. It's comfortable, fun, and relaxing...kind of like an old pair of jeans. 6月7日 Girlz nite out: Villa Cosenza in Bothell, WATonight, I got together with some of the girlz from my church and we had a night out on the B-town. The evening started with getting dressed up, because we can always use an occasion to pull that funky outfit out of the back of the closet. Unfortunately, traffic was nasty and busses were late, so I got home late from work, and consequently getting dressed up for me consisted of coming home to find my roommates all dolled up already. I barely had time to quickly dive into the first dress I could find. But the rush was worth it--we arrived at the restaurant just in time for our reservation. The seven of us dined at Villa Cosenza, a cozy, charming restaurant here in Bothell specializing in Southern Italian cuisine. To paraphrase Virginia Woolfe, good food encourages good conversation, and within minutes of being served delicious table bread we were talking about the trip to Europe we're planning to take next summer. There's a lot still up in the air on that one, and we're having a lot of fun now dreaming/figuring it out. When it came time to order, I have to give props to the girlz--almost everyone ordered something different, so we all got to try a variety of dishes. The only exception to the everyone-ordered-different rule was me. Even though someone had already ordered it, I asked for Penne Gianfranco, a chicken-and-pasta dish named after the head chef. If there's one thing I've learned from my dining experiences, it's this: always order the signature dish. If someone takes enough pride in it to put their name on it, it's probably worth it. This has never let me down. And especially not tonight! In spite of our full bellies, we ordered a couple of desserts to share around the table (you should have seen our eyes light up when our server brought over the dessert tray!). The girls who shared the chocolate cake raved about it, but didn't finish it. I enjoyed our cheesecake and we did finish it, but I probably wouldn't order it again. Before leaving, we all had to make a trek to ladies' room to take in a fun little quirk that this restaurant sports: In lieu of normal TP holders, this loo stored the roles on empty champagne bottles! Even funnier though, was my demonstration of a graceful descent down a mirrored staircase that almost ended tragically when I caught the heel of my shoe in the hem of my dress! So much for grace. I'm not sure whether to chalk this one up to vanity or the the vice that is high-heeled shoes. Finally, because the best way to top off a rich meal is with coffee, we all headed over to the Bothell branch Caffe Ladro, our current favorite among Seattle-area coffee houses. We like Ladro because all their baristas know their way around an espresso machine, and we also appreciate that it's open later than most east-side hangout establishments. Plus we think that the Italian translation of the store name "Coffee Theif" is extra-cool. I ordered my current favorite order-only-at-snobby places drink, a short skinny white Medici with whip. I thought it was funny when the out-of-town friend who ordered after me just blinked after I asked for my drink and said "I'll have the same." Even funnier considering that when I went to coffee with my cousin this afternoon, she did the same thing too! (I hope she enjoyed her tall non-fat decaf white mocha as much as I did.) We girlz had a great time talking over coffee on the Ladro patio. Again the fun conversation continued as we swapped "drive-through confessional" stories about the wacky things we've seen or participated in at fast-food drive-throughs. I'll have to save those stories for another time. Now I'm ending my day with a quick on-lnie shopping spree, mostly to order today's new release, "Smart Kid" from my favorite band, the Clumsy Lovers. I'm listening to the album now thanks to Amazon's digital locker feature, and I'm really loving it. So far, the song that's appealing to me most is album-closer "Not Long for This World" with a strong beat & bango line that winds down at the end, and is a good track for wandering off to bed... (watch for my full review of "Smart Kid" after Friday's CL concert)
5月11日 Talking about: Malcolm Gladwell on Steven Johnson's new bookIt's a trifecta to make a grad-school girl drool: In this week's New Yorker book review, one of my favorite It-Lit writers, Malcolm Gladwell, writes a review of the latest book from another favorite now-author, Steven Johson. The topic of the new book? The virtue of Pop Culture.
After having seen about a dozen ads for the season finale of Thursday's "The Apprentice" tonight, that makes a lot of sense to me. That also explains the popularity of shows like "Survivor" and "American Idol," too. We get involved because we feel we can participate in the experience. Gladwell continues to point out that this same phenominon applies to the growth in popularity and complexity in video games, too:
Just reading this article made me feel smarter. Can't wait to get my brain around the book. Hopefully, that will happen on Friday, when Johson makes a speaking stop at my place of work (I've seen him here in person a handful of times in the past--I always learn a lot from his lectures). He'll also be speaking on UW campus, at Kane Hall at 7:30. If things are timed just right, we may be able to drop in on the talk before heading over to The Shins concert, also taking place on UW campus on Friday night. |
|
|
